11 ms·

Hope it was worth it.

by mattacular 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Sharlin 7y ago
For a few glorious moments we created a lot of value for the shareholders.
- crisdux 7y ago
  We industrialized the world, lifted billions out of poverty, and increased living standards. Why do people ignore the human progress's we've made. Folks really need to have some perspective.
  - posixplz 7y ago
    And all it cost was the inevitable total destruction of our climate and ecology! Yay!
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    Had we acted on climate change in the 1980s, I doubt that would have made much difference on living standards in the end. And insofar as it would, it would have been worth it. Maybe we could have avoided the worst externalities of petrochem and consumerism-centered lifestyle.
  - nojvek 7y ago
    Right. Oil is energy. A very energy dense, low volume, light weight, easily transportable form of energy. It’s truly a liquid with magical properties that doesn’t have a green equivalent. Now the ask is to make people’s lives uncomfortable? I doubt that’s going to fly. My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins. Energy makes our lives great.
    - smt1 7y ago
      People have figured out carbon capture; people haven't figured out economical carbon capture at scale yet (except for reforestation, which only partially helps), and it feels like we're a long way off. If you want to incentivize the creation of CCS while still penalizing the externality (cost to society of a carbon intensive economy), you'd probably want to ratchet up something like a carbon tax, and then give a rebate for performing something like carbon capture. That might create the economies of scale needed.
    - Merrill 7y ago
      Petroleum and Sea Power -- https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/ https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/ Before airplanes, before tanks, the oil-fired battleship was a vast improvement over coal-fired battleships. Also "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin is essential for understanding the history of oil.
    - iikoolpp 7y ago
      > My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins. Otherwise known as a tree
      - nojvek 7y ago
        Trees are great. What I mean is engineering Trees that convert sunlight in a super efficient way and bear electroil fruits. Electroil is an imaginary liquid that is as energy dense as oil but can be converted to electricity at almost a 100% efficiency We know most of the oil is used to power engines. It’s not a very efficient chemical to kinetic energy conversion.
    - airbreather 7y ago
      While it is energy, it is basically bottled sunshine.
  - tarsinge 7y ago
    What’s progress if then m/billions will die with climate change?
  - lifeformed 7y ago
    Would that not have happened had we been more responsible with our greenhouse gas emissions?
  - dorfsmay 7y ago
    While taking action and changing our ways and the use of some products to prevent further damage to the ozone layer, and even reverse damages. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
  - freen 7y ago
    I recently read almost exactly this talking point earlier today, about Exxon’s lies. Almost word for word. 1) that’s weird. 2) we make trade off choices all of the time, it’s what society does. However, when one side argues that the trade offs don’t exist, or lie about them, that’s deeply immoral, especially when it is such a pervasive, existential threat. “If you work this job I have for you in my mine, I know for a fact you’ll get mesothelioma, I won’t tell you, and in fact fight tooth and nail to convince you and everyone else that it’s perfectly safe. But now that you have mesothelioma, why don’t you think about the salary we paid you? How it supported your whole life? Maybe have a bit of perspective, huh?”
yostrovs 7y ago
Did you take an airplane anywhere in the meantime? Hope it was worth it, cause you knew about climate change when you got on it so many times you can't count them all.
- dmm 7y ago
  People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society. Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocricy!
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society. There's a big difference between refusing to burn massive amounts of oil and refusing to participate in any aspect of society. If burning oil like this is immoral for everyone, it is immoral for you; if it is not immoral for you, it is not immoral for anyone with your resources. > Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocrisy! Yes, their arguments are silly because of hypocrisy; pricing the poor out of energy is a hypocritical way for the world's rich to purport to make change.
    - madaxe_again 7y ago
      You burn massive amounts of oil by being alive. Here you are, using a computer, using electricity, inside of a structure, eating food grown with artificial fertilisers and machinery, wearing clothes that were manufactured out of oil and then transported with oil. Unless you are living naked in a forest, foraging for food, and shivering for warmth, and have done so since birth, you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        > you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse I'm not going around judging people for ordinary oil use, I fully accept the costs of my actions, and I know that convenience is more important to me than reducing my carbon footprint, at some threshold. The hypocrisy comes from putting on an air of caring without putting in the work, as though it is somehow a moral accomplishment to impose the costs of your own lifestyle on others. I also think it's pretty rich that this thread is nothing but name-calling, antagonism, and flamebait, and dang is nowhere to be seen; but I avoid all of this behaviour and somehow still get reprimanded because HNers can't help but be nasty to eachother in my threads.

Hope it was worth it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Sharlin 7y ago

For a few glorious moments we created a lot of value for the shareholders.

crisdux 7y ago
We industrialized the world, lifted billions out of poverty, and increased living standards. Why do people ignore the human progress's we've made. Folks really need to have some perspective.
- posixplz 7y ago
  And all it cost was the inevitable total destruction of our climate and ecology! Yay!
- Sharlin 7y ago
  Had we acted on climate change in the 1980s, I doubt that would have made much difference on living standards in the end. And insofar as it would, it would have been worth it. Maybe we could have avoided the worst externalities of petrochem and consumerism-centered lifestyle.
- nojvek 7y ago
  Right. Oil is energy. A very energy dense, low volume, light weight, easily transportable form of energy. It’s truly a liquid with magical properties that doesn’t have a green equivalent. Now the ask is to make people’s lives uncomfortable? I doubt that’s going to fly. My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins. Energy makes our lives great.
  - smt1 7y ago
    People have figured out carbon capture; people haven't figured out economical carbon capture at scale yet (except for reforestation, which only partially helps), and it feels like we're a long way off. If you want to incentivize the creation of CCS while still penalizing the externality (cost to society of a carbon intensive economy), you'd probably want to ratchet up something like a carbon tax, and then give a rebate for performing something like carbon capture. That might create the economies of scale needed.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    Petroleum and Sea Power -- https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/ https://aoghs.org/petroleum-in-war/petroleum-and-sea-power/ Before airplanes, before tanks, the oil-fired battleship was a vast improvement over coal-fired battleships. Also "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin is essential for understanding the history of oil.
  - iikoolpp 7y ago
    > My bet is whoever figures out a carbon capture -> green oil solution is in for big wins. Otherwise known as a tree
    - nojvek 7y ago
      Trees are great. What I mean is engineering Trees that convert sunlight in a super efficient way and bear electroil fruits. Electroil is an imaginary liquid that is as energy dense as oil but can be converted to electricity at almost a 100% efficiency We know most of the oil is used to power engines. It’s not a very efficient chemical to kinetic energy conversion.
  - airbreather 7y ago
    While it is energy, it is basically bottled sunshine.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  What’s progress if then m/billions will die with climate change?
- lifeformed 7y ago
  Would that not have happened had we been more responsible with our greenhouse gas emissions?
- dorfsmay 7y ago
  While taking action and changing our ways and the use of some products to prevent further damage to the ozone layer, and even reverse damages. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
- freen 7y ago
  I recently read almost exactly this talking point earlier today, about Exxon’s lies. Almost word for word. 1) that’s weird. 2) we make trade off choices all of the time, it’s what society does. However, when one side argues that the trade offs don’t exist, or lie about them, that’s deeply immoral, especially when it is such a pervasive, existential threat. “If you work this job I have for you in my mine, I know for a fact you’ll get mesothelioma, I won’t tell you, and in fact fight tooth and nail to convince you and everyone else that it’s perfectly safe. But now that you have mesothelioma, why don’t you think about the salary we paid you? How it supported your whole life? Maybe have a bit of perspective, huh?”

yostrovs 7y ago

Did you take an airplane anywhere in the meantime? Hope it was worth it, cause you knew about climate change when you got on it so many times you can't count them all.

dmm 7y ago
People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society. Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocricy!
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > People who advocate change should refuse to participate in any aspect of society. There's a big difference between refusing to burn massive amounts of oil and refusing to participate in any aspect of society. If burning oil like this is immoral for everyone, it is immoral for you; if it is not immoral for you, it is not immoral for anyone with your resources. > Otherwise their arguments are invalid because of hypocrisy! Yes, their arguments are silly because of hypocrisy; pricing the poor out of energy is a hypocritical way for the world's rich to purport to make change.
  - madaxe_again 7y ago
    You burn massive amounts of oil by being alive. Here you are, using a computer, using electricity, inside of a structure, eating food grown with artificial fertilisers and machinery, wearing clothes that were manufactured out of oil and then transported with oil. Unless you are living naked in a forest, foraging for food, and shivering for warmth, and have done so since birth, you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > you’re as hypocritical as those you would accuse I'm not going around judging people for ordinary oil use, I fully accept the costs of my actions, and I know that convenience is more important to me than reducing my carbon footprint, at some threshold. The hypocrisy comes from putting on an air of caring without putting in the work, as though it is somehow a moral accomplishment to impose the costs of your own lifestyle on others. I also think it's pretty rich that this thread is nothing but name-calling, antagonism, and flamebait, and dang is nowhere to be seen; but I avoid all of this behaviour and somehow still get reprimanded because HNers can't help but be nasty to eachother in my threads.